NRA Backs Lawsuit Against Vermont Firearms Magazine Ban

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    complaint attached
    This is a challenge based off the Vermont Constitutions right to arms not the federal 2a
    The plaintiffs have set up a gofundme to help pay their lawyers. This is a link to it.

    https://www.gofundme.com/www-vtfsc-com

    http://freebeacon.com/issues/nra-backs-lawsuit-vermont-firearms-magazine-ban/

    The National Rifle Association announced on Thursday it would back a lawsuit filed against Vermont's new ban on certain firearms magazines.

    The group said it will support a suit filed by the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, Vermont State Rifle and Pistol Association, a group of sporting goods stores, and Vermont citizen Leah Stewart. The plaintiffs allege that the new ban on rifle magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition and handgun magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds violates the Vermont Constitution.

    The magazine ban was part of new gun-control legislation signed into law by Gov. Phil Scott (R.) last week. Scott and his Florida colleague Gov. Rick Scott have both signed new gun-control legislation in the wake of the Parkland school shooting that left 17 dead and the protests for new gun and magazine bans that followed. Both Republican governors are now facing NRA-backed lawsuits over their new laws.

    The NRA said Vermont's magazine ban, which affects the magazines that come standard with many of the most popular rifles and handguns on the market, will outlaw ammunition feeding devices that millions of Americans currently own.

    ADVERTISING


    "The magazines Vermont has now banned are owned by millions of law-abiding Americans," Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. "In fact, nearly half of all magazines in the nation would now be deemed ‘large capacity' by Vermont."

    Cox said magazine bans have not been effective in other states and, in his view, only serve to punish law-abiding citizens.

    "Vermont claims its new ban will advance public safety, but we know from other states that have experimented with this type of misguided ban that violent criminals are not going to adhere to the ban," Cox said. "The only people really harmed by the ban are the law-abiding citizens who will now be forced to defend themselves, their families, and their homes from violent attack by using sub-standard ammunition magazines."

    Chris Bradley, president of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, said the new ban will affect thousands of citizens in the small state who use them for everything from self and home defense to sport shooting.

    "Many of the most popular rifles and pistols come standard with magazines in excess of these new limits," Bradley said. "The Vermont Constitution's protection of the right to bear arms prevents the state from requiring law-abiding Vermonters to defend themselves and their families with sub-standard firearm magazines. We are confident the courts are going to quickly strike down this obviously unconstitutional ban."

    Attorney General T.J. Donovan, a Democrat, promised to "vigorously defend" the magazine ban. Gov. Phil Scott said he believes the law is constitutional.

    "I'm confident the new law is consistent with the Vermont Constitution and appreciate the attorney general's support and commitment in defending state law," Scott told the Vermont publication Seven Days.

    The NRA disagreed with Scott's assessment.

    "We are pleased to have been able to support the plaintiffs in this fight to vindicate their rights under the Vermont Constitution, and we expect the Vermont Courts to swiftly strike down this plainly unconstitutional ban," Cox said.
     

    Attachments

    • Sportsmen-s-Clubs-Complaint-4-18-18.pdf
      981.3 KB · Views: 105
    Last edited:

    EL1227

    R.I.P.
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 14, 2010
    20,274
    Attorney General T.J. Donovan, a Democrat, promised to "vigorously defend" the magazine ban. Gov. Phil Scott said he believes the law is constitutional.

    Wishy-washy Republican Governor (who is probably up for re-election) being coerced by an aggressive, anti-gun Democrat AG.

    Now, where have we seen that scenario already ?

    thinking%20smiley.gif


    WAKE UP VERMONT, you're being buffaloed.
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    The VT courts have historically been very good with regard to the RKBA. We'll see though. If this fails they can always try the 1st circuit.
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    Right, but they can file again in Federal court as a 2A case, correct?

    they are in the Second Circuit and we already lost with the NY case on the federal claim in the Second

    State law is the only way to do it but the Vermont 2a is stronger than the federal one
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    they are in the Second Circuit and we already lost with the NY case on the federal claim in the Second

    State law is the only way to do it but the Vermont 2a is stronger than the federal one

    Darn, you're right, I thought they were 1st circuit.
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    I looked up the docket no real movement. June 25 we see the states answer

    Entry order re MPR 1) Motion (Dft) Consented-to Motion to Extend
    Time. M/Reaction Form. granted by MT. Response due 6/25/18.
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    The State filed a motion to dismiss. I can't find it yet. I did find a copy of the Giffords Law Center's amicus brief filed in support of the State
     

    Attachments

    • Giffords law center -Amicus-Brief-as-Filed.pdf
      2 MB · Views: 161

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    yep. Great Brief. I'd say the weapons of offense and or defense are weapons of war--- all kinds of weapons. (pages 29,30)
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,690
    Pretty comprehensive brief.

    I was interested to read of "speculators from New York" who invaded Vermont with an eye toward incorporating its territory into NY and evicting Vermont citizens from the incorporated land. (pg 39). Given that bit of history, it's easy to see why Democrats would be in favor of disarming the citizenry in furtherance of their political ambitions. The process continues today, with the speculators' land-grab replaced by political vote-grubbing.
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474

    It is not a great brief. You need to read it based on what is missing and how it will be interpreted by the court. What was said in this brief is not appreciable different than what was said in the NJ magazine case.

    While VT seems to be a bit friendlier court, I can also see them adopting the 3rd circuit opinion to be consistent with the other courts.
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    It is not a great brief. You need to read it based on what is missing and how it will be interpreted by the court. What was said in this brief is not appreciable different than what was said in the NJ magazine case.

    While VT seems to be a bit friendlier court, I can also see them adopting the 3rd circuit opinion to be consistent with the other courts.

    What specifically would you write if you were the author of the brief?
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    What specifically would you write if you were the author of the brief?

    I would focus on the positive aspects of magazines. It should be easy since the state already believes that they have a societal benefit because of the exceptions they grant. I would point out the contradiction that this presents, you cant say they are both beneficial and detrimental at the same time.

    I would point out that the state's public safety interests do not include individuals and how every specific instance the state mentions would fall into this exception. I would also specifically mention the societal benefits of law abiding citizens having firearms and "large capacity magazines". I would point out that the governments use of "large capacity magazines" is just a limited as the citizen use, yet has been accepted by the legislature as beneficial. I would point out the negative effects of having the government be the sole provider of public safety and mention specific examples such as the consent decree against the Baltimore Police Dept. I would talk about how the people were historically the primary provider of public safety and the police did not exist at the time of the founding.

    I would actually explain why the law does not meet intermediate scrutiny. The government is expecting the ends to justify the means. While public safety is important end, the government is not the only provider of it. Intermediate scrutiny requires there be a substantial link between the means and the end. The problem is that they can only demonstrate that there is a correlation between bad guys and "large capacity magazines" They cannot demonstrate that the absence of these magazines would change the outcome. They cannot even demonstrate that the magazine has any effect (its the gun not the magazine). I would point out how the benefits of magazine changes are theoretical and that other factors com into play that negate the theoretical benefit. They also cannot demonstrate any link to law abiding citizens. They negatively affect public safety by taking away the historical provider of public safety and give it to the government, which really does not have responsibility to protect individual citizens. I would mention Korematsu and explain the problem is the deference they showed and how if there is not a substantial link between the means and the end you will get bad answers. Some of this can be explained better in the following article. Spece, R., Yokum, D., Scrutinizing Strict Scrutiny, Vermont Law Review, Vol 40, pg 285-351, 2015.

    I get that some of this is mentioned in the brief, but it is not exactly correct or is oriented toward showing that guns are not as bad as the state says. For example the state proffers the Mother Jones data. They claim the Everytown data disputes it, but they look at different types of mass shootings, Mother Jones looks at only the public mass shootings, but the Everytown data includes private mass shooting (typically a guy killing his whole family). In the NJ case they claim that the Navy Yard Shooting shotgun (Reminton 870) does not have a magazine, but it apparently had a fixed 7 round one. They need to try and stick to the data used by the state and poke holes in it.

    Is that enough or would you like more specifics?
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,922
    Messages
    7,259,087
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom